An Interesting New Minimlist Camera From Sony… RX0

@Brian

….completely agree with you. The RX0 is a niche product that offers unique features. My only point is that for the money, there is a Sony alternative that provides more photographic features and better quality photos at the expensive of being heavier and not waterproof or shockproof.

If being waterproof/shockproof is critical/important to the user, then the RX0 is the way to go.

However, if someone is just looking for a compact, light camera on the trail….pointing out that for the same money you can get something that provides better photos.

Tony

Tony,

You’re absolutely right that this isn’t the photography equivalent of the rx100. It’s perhaps better to compare it to what it will really compete against, which are small ruggedized cameras.

In that segment it appears to be smaller than most and will offer, by far, the highest quality images. Those relative feature improvements (and the “new” factor) are pushing the relative cost higher than the Olympus TG4 mentioned earlier, or a GoPro for example. So if you favor small size, low weight, and high image quality in your ruggedized camera, this one probably appeals to you.

But you already said you have no real interest in a waterproof, small form factor camera.  Not surprising that it seems overpriced compared to an rx100 given your preferences.

as for battery life for a 15 day trip, I’d recommend investing in an external battery pack and rechargeable devices for trips like that.  No point in having 15 day battery capacity in your camera when you’re only using it on an overnighter.  Size your external capacity (or # of spare batteries) based on the trip length

This is clearly aimed at being a gopro type video product but does sound like a good backpacking product.

My trips combine backpacking and packrafting.  I currently carry a Gopro and an OMD EM 5, with a 12 oz Ortlieb camera case to keep the latter dry and protected.  While replacing that combo with the RX0 would cost me in photo quality, the weight savings and increased functionality would be significant.  I am not a professional photographer, I just Like decent pics of my trips.  This little piece of new tech may be a compromise that lands in my sweet spot.  It will depend on the quality of the RX0’s still photos.

my logic is similar to yours derrick , the increased flexibility of this camera setup over your current one will result in better pictures anyways. its not all about resolution imo, a. adams used what would be considered trash by today’s standards but are some of the best pics of all time.

This is really interesting, but as others mentioned, it does not have a low f stop such as 1.8 or 2.0.  I used to hike with a GoPro hero 4 silver and loved the form factor, the photos left something to be desired.  Also, I got a bit tired of the super wide angle only lens.  I purchased a Canon G9x ii earlier this year, which weighs around 7.3 oz.  It’s the lightest 1″ sensor camera that is full featured that I know of.  (Andrew Skurka recommends it).  The RX100 iii is much heavier and costs more.  I’m betting that the RX100 iii is a better camera than my G9x ii.  I’m not super impressed with the G9x ii but I think it takes decent photos and video–just need to play more with the settings.

I am interested in whether this camera has built in image stabilization.  I think this would be preferred (for me) over the GoPro, although I did enjoy the simplicity and ease of using the GoPro.  It sat in my shoulder pouch pocket on a gorillapod–easy to pull out and setup quickly for ground shots.

What I really want is a camera like an RX100 that weighs 5-6 oz.  Does one exist?

Guys,

Being only semi-literate in digital camera design I need to know what the 1″ sensor of the Sony Rx0 camera give in terms of resolution that I would notice.

As I get further into gezeerhood (now 74) I am much more attracted by significantly lighter gear and the Sony Rx0 seems to fit that category perfectly. Since my motto is “I’m spending my children’s inheritance” I have no qualms about getting the selling my TG4 and getting the Sony.

Last week’s 5,000 ft. climb to 8,125 ft. on an eastern Nevada deer hunt with a total of 55 lbs. (including scoped rifle and 10 x binoculars) makes me want to buy a Skyscape X Cuben fiber tent, cost be damned. A very light $800. carbon fiber wrapped rifle barrel is also becoming attractive. My quest to extend my years of backpacking by heading to UL & SUL gear is becoming more ‘spensive.

I suspect that eventually someone is going to make a fixed lens, weather sealed, full frame camera with image stabilization, with weight about 20 oz. It won’t be cheap. But I’d think that there is a big market for a camera like this, e.g., among people that go outside. Meanwhile there’s the Sony RX1R-II. It’s full frame and 18 oz, but it isn’t weather sealed, and lacks image stabilization. Sony’s A7rii does have weather sealing and image stabilization, but with a lens, it weighs a lot more than the RX1R-II.

Eric

Sensors ar a big subject – but in short:

1. You will, obviously, get better resolution which is important if you want to display your photos in large sizes
2. You will get more dynamic range, meaning better detail in the highlights and shadows. This is important in harsh mountain and desert lighting
3. You will get better low-light performance
4. You should get better lens performance – small sensors make lens design harder, especially for wide-angles. You should get less distortion, flare and diffraction with a lens designed for a larger sensor.

I’ve probably missed stuff out, but you can see that for the enthusiast a bigger sensor is highly desirable. If you’re just taking snaps to record your trips the smaller sensors in a typical phone or point and shoot will probably work fine for you.

Final point – bear in mind that this camera was mainly designed to be used hands free on a mount in action-cam style. The ergonomics of using it manually might be troublesome – you’d have to dig out some reviews to get a sense of how practical it would be.

Being only semi-literate in digital camera design I need to know what the 1″ sensor of the Sony Rx0 camera give in terms of resolution that I would notice.

Eric,

So the main reason that a larger sensor is better is not actually resolution. Sure, you’ll probably get more, but the main benefit is a better signal-to-noise ratio. Because the pixels are much larger than on a smart phone (or even a small-sensor camera) they are taking in more light.

That’s why in bright lighting conditions the difference between the Rx0 and a smart phone won’t be as big. There’s plenty of signal to drown out noise regardless of pixel size. But in low light conditions, the difference is huge – the Rx0 is getting much more data per pixel and that reduces noise and improves picture quality.

To illustrate the far extreme, Sony has another camera called the A7s, which is specifically made for low-light conditions. It has a full-frame 35mm sensor but only 12 megapixel resolution. That means that the individual pixels are huge, and for it’s intended application that makes a big difference. I’ve never used one, but apparently with the A7s you can see the milky way in real time on the LCD screen when shooting at night. That’s pretty incredible given that most cameras require a multiple-second exposure to even make out the milky way at all.

There’s another benefit to a real camera over a smart phone in low light, which is just the ability to shoot in RAW. Shooting in RAW gives you 12 bits of color versus 8. Again, not a big deal in bright lighting, but in low light those 12 bits mean there is more detail in the shadows that you can bring out in post.

F 4.0 lens…no thank you

This is an action camera, right? Is it better than latest GP Hero?

I went from a huge and heavy DSLR to much smaller and lighter kit with mirrorless Sony NEX-6 with 2 lenses: 19mm f/2.8 for landscapes and 50mm f/1.8 for everything else. So far I’m very satisfied with image quality. It does also record video which I occasionally use. With this camera, I use a stickpic, an ultrapod, 2 filters, 3 batteries + charger, memory cards, DIY WP case, blower, cleaner. All this comes at 1181gr. ONLY! This gives you huge freedom of taking photos if you are into this.

With DSLR you will struggle to get to a 3kilo weight point. More in 4-5kg range.

Having said that, I really think to buy an action camera. This gives you really interesting perspectives and also water/weather/dust proof.

Looks interesting

Very interesting. I own two cameras, one for summer, one for winter. In the winter, I often cross country ski in very wet conditions, so that is why a have a separate, waterproof camera. I also use that camera as a backup when the weather is poor, or on those rare occasions when I go underwater. It is possible this might replace my winter camera, but I have a lot of concerns. First is ease of use. If I’m wearing gloves or worse yet, mitts, can I easily take a picture? Second is whether I can live with one focal length. Most of the time, I’m taking landscapes, but once in a while, I’ll zoom in on something. That being said, the time I really want the picture to be of the highest quality is almost always when it is wide, and this is plenty wide. In terms of quality, weight and being waterproof, I don’t think there is anything close, even if this is really expensive. I’ll keep my eyes on this, and wait for the reviews, but I’m certainly interested.

Oh, and I don’t carry a phone (so that isn’t an option).

F 4.0 lens…no thank you
Sounds slow but it is a 1″‘ sized sensor, about 4 x the typical compact camera/action camera  sensor.
The larger sensor will collect more total light than a smaller one so you can use a higher ISO and still have a similar noise level.

Roughly, it means f4 at 1″ = f2 at 1/2.3″. (by bumping the ISO)

The larger sensor will collect more total light than a smaller one
Ah … all things being equal, I think it’s actually the lens aperture which controls how much light gets through. Pin hole lens (or cheap phone): very little light; large format camera: lots of light.

Cheers

Ah…Roger, are you really trying to suggest that a larger sensor isn’t any better than a smaller one?  I’m sure you’re not, but it sure sounds that way.

I’d like something like a Google Clip, $250

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/5/16428708/google-clips-camera-privacy-parents-children

It takes pictures continuously and uses AI to decide which ones to save.

Except it’s aimed at your kids.  Maybe it could be adapted to hiking in the wilderness.  Maybe you need better quality optics.

I imagine battery life would be a concern for a continuously recording device in the backcountry

are you really trying to suggest that a larger sensor isn’t any better than a smaller one? I’m sure you’re not, but it sure sounds that way.
Read my words. I said the amount of light reaching the sensor depends entirely on the lens aperture. That has nothing to do with the size of the sensor, it’s a function of basic physics.

Now, the size of the sensor IS important. When the pixels in the sensor are too small, they are below the minimum useful size. That is set by the aperture, the wavelength of the light and the penetration depth of the photons into the sensor. You could have a 20 Mpixel sensor which is so small that it is no better then a 5 Mpixel one of reasonable size. So we speak very derisively of the ‘Mpixel race’ in phone cameras – a purely marketing-driven stupidity.

On the other hand, when the pixels are larger you get an increased dynamic range as the bigger area allows more photons to be collected before saturation is reached, and that means less noise as well. Of course, a bigger sensor means more cost, and it also means tighter constraints on the lens design (= more cost too).

Cheers

It is typically accepted that all other things being equal, when you increase the sensor size you can also correspondingly gain in ISO performance .

Every time you double the sensor area you gain one stop in usable ISO.

That did not happen with film.

For example , see the two full frame cameras on the left set at 6400 ISO match in noise level  the 4x smaller M43 camera sensors set on 1600 ISO on the right .

In f stops that is going from f 4 to f 2

So to explain the above, it means that the 1″ RX 0 at f 4  should match a 1/2.3″ (typical action camera sensor) with an f 2 aperture .

For a tiny camera, the RX0 intrigues me. The 24mm focal length and inability to do 4K video without an external recorder is a big bummer though.   I’m dreaming, but it would be cool if version 2 supported 4K @60fps, and 10mm as a GoPro replacement.  (Can always crop to a narrower FOV with 4K then output the video in 1080).

I love a wide FOV to convey backcountry context.   Ya miss the details though, so I’d see this as a supplemental camera vs primary.  But 2 cameras isn’t really UL I suppose.   I guess they went with 24mm to keep it more diverse.